My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Shots Fired!
- Thread starter coachn
- Start date
CLewey44
Registered User
Wow and some of the posts underneath the article are unreal. "Sister" men and this and that....
hanzosbm
Premium Member
Well, that was quick. The lodge here in California that I am petitioning for affiliation just called me. They couldn't remember if it was TN or KY that I was a member of. Thankfully, it's KY, but I'm guessing had it been TN I would've politely been told I could no longer attend.
hanzosbm
Premium Member
I've gotta say, this whole issue does worry me a bit. Not for this specific situation, but for the precedent.
I'm not familiar with anything in the old charges or constitutions that have anything regarding sexual orientation. Furthermore, I agree with GLoCA that this is a sectarian issue and therefore unMasonic. However, reading a lot of the comments (and between the lines) it seems like CA did this as a way to distance themselves from an unpopular opinion of the public based on these issues. In this particular case, fine. However, we've discussed the issue of transgender individuals and how that might be interpreted by various Grand Lodges. In short, I'm fine with breaking ties over Masonic criteria, but I'm worried about it being used for political reasons down the road.
I'm not familiar with anything in the old charges or constitutions that have anything regarding sexual orientation. Furthermore, I agree with GLoCA that this is a sectarian issue and therefore unMasonic. However, reading a lot of the comments (and between the lines) it seems like CA did this as a way to distance themselves from an unpopular opinion of the public based on these issues. In this particular case, fine. However, we've discussed the issue of transgender individuals and how that might be interpreted by various Grand Lodges. In short, I'm fine with breaking ties over Masonic criteria, but I'm worried about it being used for political reasons down the road.
Mel Knight
Registered User
DC suspends recognition with GA & Tenn as well
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
I hate that this happened within the craft, but this may be the change some of these primitive thinking southern Grand lodges need.
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
So wouldn't this make GA and TN clandestine to CA and DC, before you say no, this is how they classify PHA GL all because they don't recognize them.
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Last edited:
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
So would this mean that CA and DC masons could no longer hold Masonic intercourse with TN and GA masons ?
That is my understanding.
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
Interesting. I'd like to see how this is going to play out. Freemasonry is so divided on the issue's that shouldn't even matter.
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
I honestly don't think the GL of GA and TN even care. They are so behind in times, they probably see this as a good thing. Disclaimer, in no way am I referring to each individual brother in the GL. I'm referring to the GL brothers that made the decision to suspend and expel these brothers.
Last edited:
JJones
Moderator
I agree that GA and TN probably won't care. IMO if they interpret behavior as unmasonic then they have a right to take whatever actions they see fit. In a world where things like gender are becoming more ambiguous, some brethren may feel as though lines have to be drawn somewhere.
Maybe I'm just backwards also though. You know what they say, the wiser you are the less you begin to speak.
Maybe I'm just backwards also though. You know what they say, the wiser you are the less you begin to speak.
darsehole
Registered User
This is ridiculous.
I'd like to know exactly when the practice of BDS has become the only politically correct response to any given situation that anyone disagrees with?
What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction? They GL of two different states don't like homosexuals this year, so everyone has to jump on some politically correct band wagon and pretend they are holier than thou. Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry? How does it make the craft stronger? How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public?
This raises too many questions. Do the GL's of DC or Cali recognize every PHA that UGLE recognize? For that matter, if freemasonry in these jurisdictions are so perfect, than why do PHA even exist, shouldn't all men meet on the level?
These boycotts won't change anyone's mind, and they won't make the craft any more desirable for young men of any sexual orientation. All they do is divide the fraternity even further, and make certain jurisdictions look silly for jumping on the latest band wagon.
My heart goes out to any brothers from Tennessee or Georgia that are visiting Cali or DC, and are now boycotted by some authoritarian do-gooders that put political correctness before brotherly love.
Shame on the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Georgia for discriminating homosexuals, but shame on California and DC for turning their backs on their fraternal brothers.
I'd like to know exactly when the practice of BDS has become the only politically correct response to any given situation that anyone disagrees with?
What gives California or DC the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction? They GL of two different states don't like homosexuals this year, so everyone has to jump on some politically correct band wagon and pretend they are holier than thou. Explain to me how punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision that a GL made benefits the whole of freemasonry? How does it make the craft stronger? How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public?
This raises too many questions. Do the GL's of DC or Cali recognize every PHA that UGLE recognize? For that matter, if freemasonry in these jurisdictions are so perfect, than why do PHA even exist, shouldn't all men meet on the level?
These boycotts won't change anyone's mind, and they won't make the craft any more desirable for young men of any sexual orientation. All they do is divide the fraternity even further, and make certain jurisdictions look silly for jumping on the latest band wagon.
My heart goes out to any brothers from Tennessee or Georgia that are visiting Cali or DC, and are now boycotted by some authoritarian do-gooders that put political correctness before brotherly love.
Shame on the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Georgia for discriminating homosexuals, but shame on California and DC for turning their backs on their fraternal brothers.
I am surprised that this action was taken without intermediate steps. When GEKT formed its clandestine rectified rite, Mark Mason Hall gave notice it would consider withdrawing recognition at its next general purposes meeting. GEKT cleaned up its act before the meeting and no action was required. If CA and had announced their intention at CGMNA less than a month ago, it would have given notice both to TN and DC, but also to its sister GLs who may have supported the action, and lead to change without this sanction. Further, it is widely reported that this matter was to be addressed at the next TN Communication. Why not give notice and wait another six weeks for the matter to be addressed?
Those who remember the NY-DC suspension of recognition over Lebsmon will remember that brethren of both jurisdictions were effected. Whole the geographical distance in this case militates against that factor, I am unclear whether DC would allow its members to sit in tyled appendant body meetings (I've been cited to the CA code and informed that jurisdiction would allow this). As a regional or national officer / committee member in three organizations, this is of more than a little interest to mr.
Those who remember the NY-DC suspension of recognition over Lebsmon will remember that brethren of both jurisdictions were effected. Whole the geographical distance in this case militates against that factor, I am unclear whether DC would allow its members to sit in tyled appendant body meetings (I've been cited to the CA code and informed that jurisdiction would allow this). As a regional or national officer / committee member in three organizations, this is of more than a little interest to mr.
hanzosbm
Premium Member
Not to the best of my knowledge. However, if you're asking if that means that TN and GA are thereby not following the law, I would point out that it is also not legal to discriminate against women, yet they are not permitted within the fraternity.
hanzosbm
Premium Member
While I don't like how this is playing out, think about this from another point of view. TN and GA feel (for some reason I still can't understand) that homosexuals should not be part of Freemasonry. Let's change the circumstances. Let's say that TN and GA decided to start admitting women. Clearly, this is a move that California and DC (as well as about every other jurisdiction) would disagree with. So, what would give them the right to pass judgment on another jurisdiction? It's not judgment, it's recognition. CA and DC are saying that they no longer believe that TN and GA meet the criteria necessary to be considered Freemasons. How is punishing an entire jurisdiction over one decision benefiting the whole of freemasonry? It's not, nor was it ever intended to, it's about saying that they do not feel that those grand lodges fit the criteria to be considered freemasons. How does it make the craft stronger? In the same way that it has since 1717; by binding all lodges under common criteria in order to be recognized as one cohesive unit. How does it make us more desirable in the eyes of the general public? ...who cares? This isn't about the general public.
Recognition is about meeting certain landmarks that show that one grand lodge is similar enough to the others to be considered part of the group. CA and DC feel that GA and TN no longer fit that model. Now...we can argue about whether or not GA and TN have broken any of the landmarks (not an argument I'd care to participate in) and therefore whether CA and DC have grounds for this decision, but we need to recognize this for what it is.